|
|
The Order Paper and Notice Paper is a document that guides the deliberations of the Senate and lists items of business currently before it. These items are listed in several different categories and in a priority according to an arrangement adopted by the Senate as stipulated in the rules. The majority of these items constitute the Orders of the Day which are called following the daily Routine of Business. These items are themselves divided into two principal categories - government business and other business. Within each of these two categories are items for bills, motions, inquiries and reports of committees.
The Notice Paper contains the text of motions and inquiries not yet called for debate.
The Order Paper and Notice Paper is prepared every day in advance of the actual sitting.
(The following is an outline of a typical sitting day in the Senate. Variations are possible subject to the Rules and to the decisions of the Senate.)
1. Tabling of Documents
2. Presentation of Reports from Standing or Special Committees
3. Government Notices of Motions
4. Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
5. Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills
6. First Reading of Commons Public Bills
7. Reading of Petitions for Private Bills
8. Introduction and First Reading of Private Bills
9. Tabling of Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations
10. Notices of Motions
11. Notices of Inquiries
12. Presentation of Petitions
Bills
Inquiries
Motions
Reports of Committees
Senate Public Bills
Commons Public Bills
Private Bills
Reports of Committees
Other
February 15, 2012—Second reading of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.
February 16, 2012—Second reading of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.
Nil
Nil
Nil
Rule 27(3) states:
Unless previously ordered, any item under "Other Business'', "Inquiries'' and "Motions'' that has not been proceeded with during fifteen sittings shall be dropped from the Order Paper.
Consequently, the number appearing in parenthesis indicates the number of sittings since the item was last proceeded with.
November 23, 2011—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, seconded by the Honourable Senator Banks, for the second reading of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (carbon offset tax credit). —(Honourable Senator Comeau)
February 8, 2012—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Watt, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lovelace Nicholas, for the second reading of Bill S-207, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act (non- derogation of aboriginal treaty rights).—(Honourable Senator Comeau)
January 31, 2012—Second reading of Bill S-208, An Act to amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes).—(Honourable Senator Jaffer)
September 28, 2011—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cordy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Peterson, for the second reading of Bill S-204, An Act to establish a national strategy for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI).—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
Nil
Nil
November 22, 2011—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Smith P.C. (Cobourg), seconded by the Honourable Senator Cordy, for the adoption of the first report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament (Revised Rules of the Senate), presented in the Senate on November 16, 2011.—(Honourable Senator Smith, P.C.(Cobourg))
December 16, 2011—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lang, for the adoption of the fourth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, entitled: Answering the Call: The Future role of Canada's Primary Reserve, tabled in the Senate on December 15, 2011.—(Honourable Senator Mitchell)
February 16, 2011—Consideration of the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (budget—study on the management of the grey seal population off Canada's East Coast—power to hire staff and to travel), presented in the Senate on February 16, 2012.—(Honourable Senator Manning)
February 7, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Frum, calling the attention of the Senate to egregious human rights abuses in Iran, particularly the use of torture and the cruel and inhuman treatment of unlawfully incarcerated political prisoners.—(Honourable Senator Fraser)
January 31, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Meighen, calling the attention of the Senate to the economic benefits of recreational Atlantic salmon fishing in Canada.—(Honourable Senator Hubley)
February 2, 2012—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Raine, seconded by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk:
That the Senate call upon the Government of Canada to modernize and standardize the laws that regulate Canada's maple syrup industry, which is poised for market growth in North America and overseas, and which provides consumers with a natural and nutritious agricultural product that has become a symbol of Canada;
That the Government of Canada should do this by amending the Maple Products Regulations, in accordance with the September 2011 recommendations of the International Maple Syrup Institute in its document entitled "Regulatory Proposal to Standardize the Grades and Nomenclature for Pure Maple Syrup in the North American and World Marketplace'', for the purpose of
(a) adopting a uniform definition as to what constitutes pure maple syrup;
(b) contributing toward the development of an international standard for maple syrup, as it has become very apparent that the timing for the introduction of such a standard is ideal;
(c) eliminating non-tariff measures that are not found in the international standard that may be used as a barrier to trade such as container sizes and shapes;
(d) modernizing and standardizing the grading and classification system for pure maple syrup sold in domestic, import and export markets and through interprovincial trade, thereby eliminating the current patchwork system of grades that is confusing and fails to explain to consumers in meaningful terms important differences between grades and colour classes;
(e) benefiting both marketing and sales for an industry that is mature, highly organized and well positioned for growth;
(f) enhancing Canadian production and sales, which annually constitutes in excess of 80% of the world's annual maple products output; and
(g) upholding and enhancing quality and safety standards as they pertain to maple products;
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Nolin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lang, that the motion be amended as follows:
1) By replacing the words "which is poised for market growth'' by the words " which wants to pursue its dynamic development''; and
2) By replacing paragraph (d) in the motion by the following:
"Modernizing and standardizing the grading of pure Maple syrup sold in domestic, import and export markets and through interprovincial trade which would explain more clearly to the consumer the classification and the grading system;''.—(Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C.)
October 20, 2011—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cordy, calling the attention of the Senate to those Canadians living with multiple sclerosis (MS) and chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), who lack access to the "liberation'' procedure.—(Honourable Senator Cordy)
November 2, 2011—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Hubley, calling the attention of the Senate to the 5th anniversary of the tabling of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology's report: Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada.—(Honourable Senator Losier-Cool)
November 17, 2011—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the issue of poverty in Canada—an issue that is always current and continues to have devastating effects.—(Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.)
February 7, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, calling the attention of the Senate to the inequities of the Old Age Security Allowance for unattached, low-income seniors aged 60-64 years.—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
February 7, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Callbeck, calling the attention of the Senate to the importance of literacy, given that more than ever Canada requires increased knowledge and skills in order to maintain its global competitiveness and to increase its ability to respond to changing labour markets.—(Honourable Senator Callbeck)
February 7, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the 2009 poverty reduction strategy of New Brunswick.—(Honourable Senator Chaput)
February 7, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Comeau, calling the attention of the Senate to the content of committee orders of reference.—(Honourable Senator Fraser)
February 2, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Meighen, calling the attention of the Senate to the unconscionable delay, despite the resolution of this Chamber passed unanimously on June 18, 2008, of the awarding of an appropriate theatre decoration for the brave Canadian flyers and crew who served in Bomber Command during World War II, without whose efforts, courage and sacrifice the war and its destruction would have continued for many more years.—(Honourable Senator Carignan)
January 31, 2012—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Losier-Cool, calling the attention of the Senate to the evolution of education in the language of the minority. —(Honourable Senator Comeau)
November 2, 2011—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Munson:
That the Government of Canada officially apologize in Parliament to the South Asian community and to the individuals impacted in the 1914 Komagata Maru incident. —(Honourable Senator Carignan)
December 16, 2011—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mercer, calling the attention of the Senate to Canada's current level of volunteerism, the impact it has on society, and the future of volunteerism in Canada.—(Honourable Senator Mercer)
December 15, 2011—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Mitchell, calling the attention of the Senate to the need for a new call to action on climate change. —(Honourable Senator Mitchell)
December 13, 2011—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moore, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to honour section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act which provides that the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless
(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.—(Honourable Senator Mercer)
December 6, 2011—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Greene, calling the attention of the Senate to the modernization of the practices and procedures of the Senate Chamber with a focus on private members bills.—(Honourable Senator Moore)
December 6, 2011—Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Champagne, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to euthanasia and assisted suicide.—(Honourable Senator Stratton)
December 6, 2011—That he will call the attention of the Senate to the importance of Canada playing a proactive role in bringing about the successful conclusion to the Doha Development Round.
December 8, 2011—That she will call the attention of the Senate for the purpose of paying tribute to the Honourable Senator Tommy Banks, in recognition of his outstanding career as a member of the Senate of Canada and for his many contributions and service to Canadians.
February 2, 2012—That she will call the attention of the Senate to the interference of foreign foundations in Canada's domestic affairs and their abuse of Canada's existing Revenue Canada Charitable status.
February 7, 2012—That he will call the attention of the Senate to:
(a) the problem of Canadians evading taxes by hiding assets in overseas tax havens;
(b) the harm this does to Canada, both in terms of lost revenue and its effect on those Canadians who obey the law and pay their fair share of taxes;
(c) the pathetic efforts of the Canada Revenue Agency to discover, halt and deter overseas tax evasion, and how, in comparison to those similar agencies in other countries, CRA falls short;
(d) the fact that this, plus recent scandals involving the CRA could lead one to conclude that there are serious problems at the Agency; and
(e) concerns that this situation amounts to a lack of leadership on the part of the Government of Canada.
December 1, 2011—That the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans have the power to sit at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6, 2011 and at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that Rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.
June 7, 2011—1. What were the total net assets of the Canada Pension Plan fund at the end of the most recent fiscal year? Of the previous fiscal year? What portion of these assets was in the form of cash for each year?
2. What was the total amount of benefits paid out during the most recent fiscal year? During the previous fiscal year?
3. Would you provide the latest actuarial assessment of the Canada Pension Plan fund with respect to its capacity to meet anticipated demand for benefits?
(a) When was this assessment performed?
(b) When is the next assessment planned?
4. In the past 5 years, have officials at Canada Pension Plan, Finance Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat or Human Resources and Social Development Canada performed any assessment or estimate of the cost of making changes to the limitation on benefits paid retroactive from the date of application?
(a) If so, would you provide the resulting assessments and/or estimates?
(b) If so, would you provide any evaluation that was made about the impact of each option on the actuarial soundness of the Plan?
5. Has any assessment or estimate been made of the cost of matching the Quebec Pension Plan's policy of making retroactive payments for up to 60 months?
(a) If so, would you provide the resulting assessments and/or estimates?
(b) If so, would you provide any evaluation that was made about the impact of each option on the actuarial soundness of the Plan?
6. Has any assessment or estimate been made of the cost of removing the limit altogether, and allowing applicants to receive payment for all retroactive benefits?
(a) If so, would you provide the resulting assessments and/or estimates?
(b) If so, would you provide any evaluation that was made about the impact of each option on the actuarial soundness of the Plan?
June 7, 2011—In response to questioning during the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance meeting on March 23, 2010, the President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Stockwell Day, undertook to provide documentation to identify departmental savings which occurred as a result of recent strategic reviews.
On May 13, 2010, Minister Day provided to the Committee a listing of each department's total savings, but the list lacked a detailed summary.
1. As a result of Strategic Review 2007, Canadian International Development Agency identified $295.8 million in savings from fiscal years 2008-09 to 2010-11.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $52.2 million in total savings for 2008-09?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $107.6 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $136 million in total savings for 2010-11?
2. As a result of Strategic Review 2007, Foreign Affairs and International Trade identified $271 million in savings from fiscal years 2008-09 to 2010-11.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $73.1 million in total savings for 2008-09?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $92.8 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $105.1 million in total savings for 2010-11?
3. As a result of Strategic Review 2007, Statistics Canada identified $50.9 million in savings from fiscal years 2008- 09 to 2010-11.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $11.5 million in total savings for 2008-09?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $17.9 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $21.5 million in total savings for 2010-11?
4. As a result of Strategic Review 2008, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada identified $417.004 million in savings from fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $130.227 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $143.172 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $143.605 million in total savings for 2011-12?
5. As a result of Strategic Review 2008, Correctional Services Canada identified $131.671 million in savings from fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $42.048 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $46.323 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $43.3 million in total savings for 2011-12?
6. As a result of Strategic Review 2008, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council identified $80.76 million in savings from fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $13.27 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $27.07 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $40.42 million in total savings for 2011-12?
7. As a result of Strategic Review 2008, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council identified $20.11 million in savings from fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $2.57 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $7.04 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $10.5 million in total savings for 2011-12?
8. As a result of Strategic Review 2008, Veterans Affairs Canada identified $35.156 million in savings from fiscal years 2009-10 to 2011-12.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $3.866 million in total savings for 2009-10?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $7.253 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $24.037 million in total savings for 2011-12?
9. As a result of Strategic Review 2009, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation identified $299.15 million in savings from fiscal years 2010-11 to 2012-13.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $97.02 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $99.93 million in total savings for 2011-12?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $102.2 million in total savings for 2012-13?
10. As a result of Strategic Review 2009, Canadian Tourism Commission identified $9.296 million in savings from fiscal years 2010-11 to 2012-13.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $896,000 in total savings for 2010-11?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $4.2 million in total savings for 2011-12?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $4.2 million in total savings for 2012-13?
11. As a result of Strategic Review 2009, Environment Canada identified $53.103 million in savings from fiscal years 2010-11 to 2012-13.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $13.669 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $19.714 million in total savings for 2011-12?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $19.72 million in total savings for 2012-13?
12. As a result of Strategic Review 2009, Public Safety Canada identified $35.844 million in savings from fiscal years 2010-11 to 2012-13.
(a) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $7.518 million in total savings for 2010-11?
(b) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $13.402 million in total savings for 2011-12?
(c) Would you please provide a detailed list of all sources of the $14.924 million in total savings for 2012-13?
June 14, 2011— With respect to priority hiring:
Since 2005, qualified medically released Canadian Forces (CF) veterans have been eligible for priority employment appointments in the federal public service.
These new provisions have created important future career opportunities for veterans, but unfortunately, there are low participation levels in most federal government departments — participation that is vital in making these opportunities a reality for our injured veterans.
Statistics from the Public Service Commission show that in 2007-2008, 69 percent of medically released veterans using the priority system were appointed to one department, the Department of National Defence. Other departments are only marginally participating in this program, and in that year alone, 67 veterans had their priority appointment status expire without finding a position in the public service.
For the period from January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2011:
1. How many people were hired by the federal public service?
(a) How many were term employees?
(b) How many were casual employees?
(c) How many were indeterminate employees?
2. How many members of the CF were medically released?
(a) How many of these medically released members applied for a priority employment appointment in the federal public service?
(b) How many received a priority employment appointment?
(c) How many were still on the priority employment list when their eligibility period expired?
3. How many qualified medically released Canadian Forces veterans were hired by each federal Government department?
4. What measures are being taken to extend this program to account for the large number of temporary and contract workers employed by the federal Government?
June 23, 2011—With respect to the government decentralization:
A. Could the Government of Canada provide information on proposals prepared from January 1, 2006, to May 31, 2011, regarding the relocation of federal government departments (or parts thereof), agencies and Crown corporations from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?
B. Could the Government of Canada provide information on assessments completed from January 1, 2006, to May 31, 2011, regarding which federal government departments (or parts thereof), agencies or Crown corporations could be relocated from the National Capital area to the regions of Canada?
June 23, 2011—With respect to trade agreements:
Canada and the European Union are undertaking negotiations to complete a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. The discussion includes provisions for trade in goods and services, investment, government procurement, regulatory cooperation, intellectual property, temporary entry of business persons, competition policy and other related matters, labour and the environment.
However, as negotiators continue their work, Canadians are concerned about the federal government's ability to obtain a strong and effective deal for Canada, as other trade agreements recently negotiated and signed by this Government have included many flaws. For example, despite the clear willingness on the part of Peru to complete trade negotiations with as many countries as possible, the federal government failed to negotiate meaningful provisions to protect the intellectual property rights of Canadians, and further failed to obtain a clause similar to that in the United States-Peru trade agreement that allows United States agricultural exporters to automatically obtain improved trade benefits included in any future trade negotiations Peru makes with other countries. As a result, Canadian beef, pork and potato producers have been left at a competitive disadvantage with other countries, specifically the United States.
This outcome leads to broader questions about Canada's ability to negotiate effective agreements. Although the prosperity of Canada does not depend on the signing of a free trade agreement with Peru, the results reflect the federal government's inability to obtain the strongest possible trade agreements.
Could the Government of Canada please provide the following information:
A. a copy of all documents and analysis comparing the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement with trade agreements Jordan negotiated with other countries;
B. a copy of all documents and analysis comparing the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement with trade agreements Panama negotiated with other countries.
C. What is the number of negotiators, if any, that have been retained from outside of the federal government to represent Canada in current trade negotiations?
D. Has the Government of Canada considered and/or implemented plans to undertake a review of the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement in 2014 to evaluate the trade implications for Canada?
June 23, 2011—With respect to Canadian veterans trying to obtain fair compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange defoliant spraying at Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown:
While campaigning in the 2006 federal election, Stephen Harper stated: "Our government will stand up for full compensation for persons exposed to defoliant spraying during the period from 1956 to 1984.''
On September 12, 2007, the Government announced a disappointing compensation package for those affected by the spraying of Agent Orange, offering payment only to those who served between 1966 and 1967. In order to receive the compensation that was promised to them, and force Prime Minister Stephen Harper to honour his commitment, these deserving Canadian veterans have had to undertake a class action lawsuit against the Government of Canada.
The Government of Canada has confirmed that as of March 2010, the Departments of Justice, Health, National Defence, and Veterans Affairs have spent a combined $7.8 million in legal costs fighting against Canadian veterans in this matter.
Would the Government of Canada provide the following information:
A. What is the total amount of money spent by all federal departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, for the time period of July 1, 2005, to June 1, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?
i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010, and June 1, 2011?
B. What is the total amount of money the government has spent to hire outside legal counsel for the time period of July 1, 2005, to June 1, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?
i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010, and June 1, 2011?
C. What is the total amount of money spent, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice officials, for the time period of January 1, 2009, to June 1, 2011, in its defence against the Canadian veterans' Agent Orange class action lawsuit?
i. What is the total amount spent between March 5, 2010 and June 1, 2011?
October 18, 2011—With respect to the Government of Canada's 2020 targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels:
1. Could the government provide its assessment on how Canada will meet the 2020 target? In answering this question, could the government provide a specific breakdown of the initiatives it will introduce to close the 178 mt emission gap between the Government of Canada's 2020 target and the expected emissions reductions from current actions (for more information, please view the chart on page 12 of the document Canada's Emissions Trends, published by Environment Canada in July 2011). For each initiative will the government detail how many emissions are expected to be reduced, and how many of those reductions will occur before 2020 and how many will occur after 2020.
2. Could the government provide estimate of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions for each year in the period 2010- 2020 (in megatonnes); specifically noting which year Canadian emissions will peak?
3. Could the government indicate how many emission credits will need to be purchased to meet the 2020 target, and where the government intends to purchase them from?
4. The Environment Minister had indicated (October 29, 2009) that it is possible to meet the 2020 target with a carbon price that is $28 per tonne. Could the government please provide all documents and assessments that outline how the 2020 target will be met with that carbon price?
5. Could the government provide its assessment of the quantity of emissions that will be reduced for each (and all) of its existing climate change related programs and spending in the 2010 - 2020 time period?
October 18, 2011—With respect to the Minister of Natural Resources' statement "since 2006, our government has invested more than $10 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build a more sustainable environment,'':
1. Could the government provide a full break-down of that spending?
2. For each program, could the government detail the amount of emissions reductions occurring from the program?
3. In total, for all programs included in the $10 billion expenditure, what was the average cost per unit of greenhouse gas emissions reduced?
October 18, 2011—With respect to the economic modeling of climate change impacts:
1. Could the government provide its own assessment of the economic cost of climate change in the years 2020 and 2050?
2. Could the government provide a breakdown of the projected economic costs of climate change by province and territory for both 2020 and 2050?
3. Could the government provide a detailed description of its methodology in calculating the economic impacts of climate change?
4. Could the government provide its own assessment of the economic cost of climate change in the forestry sector and on the economic cost to coastal areas?
October 27, 2011—With respect to the Canada Shipping Act and regulations concerning cruise ships and sewage discharge:
Prince Edward Island (PEI) counts itself among the many provinces that are benefitting from the growing number of cruise lines that have Canadian ports of call. In light of the importance of tourism to the local economy, and mindful of the equally important aquaculture and fisheries industries which rely on the stewardship of our waterways, inquires have been made concerning the growing numbers of cruise ships in Atlantic-Canadian waters.
Could the Government of Canada please indicate:
1. What government department or agency is responsible for enforcing the regulations under the Act?
2. How is compliance with the regulations enforced/monitored?
3. What, if any, are the fines and/or penalties for non-compliance?
4. How many complaints of violations have occurred since the regulations were implemented?
(a) How many of the complaints, if any, have occurred in waters around PEI?
(b) How many of the complaints, if any, have involved cruise ships that have ports of call in PEI?
5. What fines and/or penalties have been imposed with respect to violations in (4.)?
December 8, 2011—In June 2010, the Conservative government cancelled the mandatory long-form census and replaced it with the Voluntary Household Survey.
a) In the 2011 Census process, how many Voluntary Household Surveys were mailed to Canadians?
b) How were recipients chosen?
c) What was the cost to implement the Voluntary Household Survey?
d) How many of the Voluntary Household Surveys were returned?
e) How many Voluntary Household Surveys were completed correctly and therefore contained useful data?
f) Did Statistics Canada establish a target(s) for the 2011 Voluntary Household Survey response rate? If so, what were those targets?
g) What activities were undertaken by Statistics Canada or the Government of Canada to encourage Canadians to complete the Voluntary Household Survey? What was the cost of these activities?
h) What activities, if any, were undertaken by Statistics Canada or the Government of Canada to follow up with Canadians who did not complete the Voluntary Household Survey?
i) What was the cost to carry out the mandatory long-form census in 2006? In 2001?
j) How many mandatory long-form census forms were mailed in 2006? How many in 2001?
k) How many mandatory long-form census forms were returned in 2006? How many in 2001?
December 12, 2011—1. According to documents received through an access to information request, Human Resources and Social Development Canada estimated that in July 2005 there were as many as 70,000 people over the age of 70 who paid into the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), who might still be alive, but who were not in receipt of their CPP retirement benefits. Of those 70,000, approximately 26,000 eligible people were already getting survivor benefits, Old Age Pension or the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
(a) Has Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) undertaken new estimates of the number of people over the age of 70 who paid into the Canada Pension Plan, who might still be alive, but who were not in receipt of their CPP retirement benefits?
(b) How many people over the age of 70 years and believed still alive are estimated to be currently missing out on their CPP retirement benefits?
(c) How many of the people in b) are currently in receipt of survivor benefits, Old Age Pension or the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
(d) Since February 2006, what outreach activities or initiatives has HRSDC or Service Canada undertaken to notify eligible seniors over the age of 70 who are not currently in receipt of their CPP retirement benefits?
(e) Since February 2006, did HRSDC or Service Canada undertake any notifications by mail to eligible seniors over the age of 70 who are not currently in receipt of their CPP retirement benefits? If so, in what years were letters mailed? How many were sent in each of those years? What was the response rate in each of those years?
2. On December 4, 2007, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance held a hearing on the retroactivity provisions of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). During the proceedings it was noted by government officials that since Canadians may choose to apply for the CPP at different ages, the staff of Service Canada, the service delivery unit of Human Resources and Social Development Canada, had been instructed not to invite people to apply for CPP benefits when they apply for OAS benefits.
(a) Is this policy for Service Canada frontline personnel still in place?
(b) If so, have Service Canada and/or Human Resources and Skills Development Canada given consideration to changing this policy in any way?
(c) Would you please provide the rationale for the continuation of this policy for Service Canada frontline personnel?
(d) If the policy has been changed, what is the new policy for Service Canada frontline personnel?
3. In March 2008, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance released its report entitled "Report on the Financial Security for Seniors: Entitlements and Retroactivity Provisions under the Canada Pension Plan'', which recommended that: "The Federal Government examine new ways to reach those eligible Canadians that are not yet receiving their Canada pensions; and to encourage Canadians to avail themselves of the benefits to which they are entitled.''
(a) Has the federal government undertaken to implement this recommendation? If so, how?
(b) What specific outreach activities have been undertaken to ensure that seniors are receiving all the Canada Pension Plan benefits to which they are entitled?
December 15, 2011—With respect to the television advertisements Our Veterans Matter, The Pride of Our Country, Veterans' Week Vignette, and other 2011 Veterans' Week television spots:
The Conservatives have spent over $2.55 million dollars announcing promises to veterans at costly public relations and media events since 2006. Why is the Harper Government putting public relations ahead of services for Veterans?
The United States and the United Kingdom have committed to tackling their federal deficits without cutting back the budgets of their Veterans Affairs departments, as they recognize that doing so would negatively impact services provided to veterans and their families.
In light of the fact that the Harper Government will not make the same commitment to trim the deficit without cutting the budget at Veterans Affairs Canada, could the Government of Canada indicate:
(a) how many different advertisements were produced and/or used to promote Veterans'Week in 2011;
(b) what was the total cost (production, airtime, etc.) for the advertisements in (a);
(c) what was the cost to produce the television spots, broken down individually by advertisement;
(d) what company or companies produced the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement;
(e) what was the cost of television airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement;
(f) what television channels were the advertisements aired on;
(g) what was the cost of online airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement;
(h) what online platforms were the advertisements aired on, broken down by free media (i.e. posting to YouTube) and fee media (i.e. online commercials); and
(i) what programs or divisions of Veterans Affairs Canada were responsible for
(i) overseeing/coordinating production of the advertisements,
(ii) financing the production of the advertisements,
(iii) financing the purchase of airtime both on television and online?
December 15, 2011—With respect to Canada's liability as a financing member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD):
(a) what is the amount of Canada's unfunded liability;
(b) what is the total amount of Canada's liability; and
(c) what are the amounts of unfunded and total liability for other financing members of the EBRD, broken down by member?
